Rwanda: Supreme Court has ruled on the government’s plan – everything you need to know
The government’s flagship immigration policy, known as the Rwanda plan, is hanging in the balance this morning after the highest court in the land found it to be unlawful.
But what is the scheme? Why is it so controversial? And how has it ended up in the judicial system?
The Rwanda plan was first proposed by Boris Johnson back in April 2022 as the government came under increasing pressure to tackle the growing number of small boats crossing the Channel.
The then prime minister outlined his policy that would see anyone arriving in the country illegally deported to the east African nation.
Those who successfully applied for refugee status when there would then be given the right to remain in Rwanda – not return to the UK.
But if their claim was unsuccessful, they could then be removed to their country of origin.
The deal, signed by the home secretary at the time, Priti Patel, and her Rwandan counterpart, cost the government £120m.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Boris Johnson: ‘We must defeat people smugglers’
Mr Johnson said it would help deter people from making the dangerous crossing to the UK and tackle the “barbaric trade in human misery” caused by people traffickers.
Opposition parties and charities deemed the plan “cruel and nasty”, and claimed the policy would break international human rights laws.
There were even reports that the King – then the Prince of Wales – was a critic of the scheme.
But the government pushed ahead, with the first flight to Kigali set to take off in June 2022.
Come the day, there were only seven asylum seekers on board the plane.
Numerous court cases were launched by refugee charities, as well as the Public and Commercial Services union, ahead of take-off, calling the policy “inhumane” and demanding the deportations were stopped.
Protesters also tried to stop the flight, locking themselves together with metal pipes and blockading exits of the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre at Heathrow, where the migrants were believed to be held.
However, judges in the UK ruled the seven people could be deported, saying there had been an “assurance” from the government that if the policy was found to be unlawful at a later stage, steps would be taken to bring back any migrants.
This didn’t stop further last-minute legal challenges to prevent take-off though.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer dubbed the government’s Rwanda plan a ‘gimmick’.
In the end, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued injunctions to halt the deportations altogether, leaving the plane grounded on a Ministry of Defence runway.
The government said it would appeal against the ruling, with Tory MPs angered that a European court could overrule the decision of English judges.
But campaigners said it showed the “inhumanity” of the plan for the human rights watchdog to intervene.
In the months that followed, there was a change in government, with Liz Truss taking the keys to Number 10 and Suella Braverman heading up the Home Office.
Both women stood by the Rwanda plan and, even when Ms Truss was ousted weeks later, her successor Rishi Sunak also gave it his backing.
The ruling of the EHRC – which ensures the European Human Rights Convention is adhered to – was still fresh in the minds of Tory backbenchers, as they saw it as holding up the policy they believed would stop the boats.
And it led to a number of calls for the UK to leave the convention, though they appeared to remain in the minority.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Suella Braverman is a vocal advocate of the Rwanda policy
The plan itself headed back to the courts as campaigners tried a new tactic to stop it in its tracks, launching a judicial review on the Home Office’s assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country.
The government doubled down on its belief in the scheme – with Ms Braverman telling the Conservative Party conference it was her “dream” to see flights take off.
And come December of 2022, that dream looked closer to reality, as the High Court ruled in the favour of ministers, saying the scheme did not breach either the UN’s Refugee Convention or human rights laws, and that Rwanda was a “safe third country” for migrants to be sent to.
But the legal battle was far from over.
Campaigners were then allowed to appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeal, and the three sitting judges overturned the High Court’s decision.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett concluded Rwanda was not a safe place for people to be housed while their asylum claims were processed, adding: “The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The Court of Appeal ruled against the government
The government was outraged, with the prime minister saying he “fundamentally disagreed” with the ruling, and would do “whatever is necessary” to get the removal flights going.
The anger of Ms Braverman and her right-wing supporters also grew, with further demands to leave the ECHR, and others calling for the human rights convention to be overhauled.
The government got approval to appeal that ruling and, as a result, it was sent to the Supreme Court.
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court President Lord Rees found that the Court of Appeal had been right to overturn the original decision of the High Court.
He said the justices had unanimously concluded those sent to the country would be at “real risk” of being returned home, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not.
The full judgment said those sent to Rwanda would be at risk of re-foulement – where a refugee is returned to their country of origin where there is a substantial risk they could be subjected to torture.
The court ruling said the principle of re-foulement is not just a breach of the European Human Rights Convention, but a number of other international treaties.
Mr Sunak said ministers would now “consider next steps”.
A new long-awaited child poverty strategy is promising to lift half a million children out of poverty by the end of this parliament – but critics have branded it unambitious.
The headline announcement in the government’s plan is the pledge to lift the two-child benefit cap, announced in Rachel Reeves’s budget last week.
It also includes:
• Providing upfront childcare support for parents on universal credit returning to work
• An £8m fund to end the placement of families in bed and breakfasts beyond a six-week limit
• Reforms to cut the cost of baby formula
• A new legal duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors, and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation
Many of the measures have previously been announced.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Two-child cap ‘a real victory for the left’
The government also pointed to its plan in the budget to cut energy bills by £150 a year, and its previously promised £950m boost to a local authority housing fund, which it says will deliver 5,000 high-quality homes for better temporary accommodation.
Downing Street said the strategy would lift 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030, saying that would be the biggest reduction in a single parliament since records began.
But charities had been hoping for a 10-year strategy and argue the plan lacks ambition.
A record 4.5 million children (about 31%) are living in poverty in the UK – 900,000 more since 2010/11, according to government figures.
Phillip Anderson, the Strategic Director for External Affairs at the National Children’s Bureau (NCB), told Sky News: “Abolishing the two-child limit is a hell of a centre piece, but beyond that it’s mainly a summary of previously announced policies and commitments.
“The really big thing for me is it misses the opportunity to talk about the longer term. It was supposed to be a 10-year strategy, we wanted to see real ambition and ideally legally binding targets for reducing poverty.
“The government itself says there will still be around four million children living in poverty after these measures and the strategy has very little to say to them.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘A budget for benefits street’
‘Budget for benefits street’ row
The biggest measure in the strategy is the plan to lift the two-child benefit cap from April. This is estimated to lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030, at a cost of £3bn.
The government has long been under pressure from backbench Labour MPs to scrap the cap, with most experts arguing that it is the quickest, most cost-effective way to drive-down poverty this parliament.
The cap, introduced by Conservative chancellor George Osborne in 2017, means parents can only claim universal credit or tax credits for their first two children. It meant the average affected household losing £4,300 per year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated in 2024.
The government argues that a failure to tackle child poverty holds back the economy, and young people at school, cutting their employment and earning prospects in later life.
However, the Conservatives argue parents on benefits should have to make the same financial choices about children as everyone else.
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: “Work is the best way out poverty but since this government took office, unemployment has risen every single month and this budget for Benefits Street will only make the situation worse. “
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
OBR leak: This has happened before
‘Bring back Sure Start’
Lord Bird, a crossbench peer who founded the Big Issue and grew up in poverty, said while he supported the lifting of the cap there needed to be “more joined up thinking” across government for a longer-term strategy.
He has been pushing for the creation of a government ministry of “poverty prevention and cure”, and for legally binding targets on child poverty.
“You have to be able to measure yourself, you can’t have the government marking its own homework,” he told Sky News.
Lord Bird also said he was a “great believer” in resurrecting Sure Start centres and expanding them beyond early years.
The New Labour programme offered support services for pre-school children and their parents and is widely seen to have improved health and educational outcomes. By its peak in 2009-2010 there were 3,600 centres – the majority of which closed following cuts by the subsequent Conservative government.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Lord Bird on the ‘great distraction’ from child poverty
PM to meet families
Sir Keir Starmer’s government have since announced 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs – but many Labour MPs feel this announcement went under the radar and ministers missed a trick in not calling them “Sure Starts” as it is a name people are familiar with.
The prime minister is expected to meet families and children in Wales on Friday, alongside the Welsh First Minister, to make the case for his strategy and meet those he hopes will benefit from it.
Several other charities have urged ministers to go further. Both Crisis and Shelter called for the government to unfreeze housing benefit and build more social rent homes, while the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, said that “if we are to end child poverty – not just reduce it” measures like free bus travel for school-age children would be needed.
The strategy comes after the government set up a child poverty taskforce in July 2024, which was initially due to report back in May. The taskforce’s findings have not yet been published – only the government’s response.
Sir Keir said: “Too many children are growing up in poverty, held back from getting on in life, and too many families are struggling without the basics: a secure home, warm meals and the support they need to make ends meet.
“I will not stand by and watch that happen, because the cost of doing nothing is too high for children, for families and for Britain.”
A group of former executives from the collapsed crypto-friendly Signature Bank has launched a new blockchain-based, state-chartered bank called N3XT, with the goal of enabling instant 24-hour payments.
N3XT said on Thursday that it aims to settle payments instantly at any time using a private blockchain and offers programmable payments through smart contracts. The company added that its systems have been designed for interoperability with stablecoins, utility tokens, and other digital assets.
Signature Bank founder Scott Shay founded N3XT, which will operate under a Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) charter and will not offer lending services.
Signature Bank was one of three crypto-friendly banks, along with Silicon Valley Bank and Silvergate Bank, that collapsed in the 2023 US banking crisis due to a bank run and ties to the then-rapidly falling crypto market.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took control of Signature Bank in March 2023, just days after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, saying it had an overreliance on uninsured deposits, weak risk controls and was facing a worsening run on deposits.
N3XT avoiding lending services
Jeffrey Wallis, Signature Bank’s former director of digital asset and Web3 strategy, will be N3XT’s CEO and president and said that crypto innovations are at the heart of the new venture.
“Money should move as seamlessly as information,” he said. “We’re applying crypto innovations to banking to deliver instant, programmable payments for institutional clients.”
N3XT won’t be offering lending, and the bank claims its reserves are also backed one-to-one by cash or short-term US Treasurys, with promises to share reserve holdings daily.
At launch, N3XT lists its client base as unnamed businesses across crypto, foreign exchange, shipping and logistics, and a variety of other sectors.
Crypto venture capital firms backing N3XT
The bank raised three rounds of financing from a range of investors that included Winklevoss Capital, the venture capital firm of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, Paradigm and HACK VC.
Related: Group of EU banks pushes for euro-pegged stablecoin by 2027
Hack co-founder Alexander Pack said in an X post on Thursday his firm is ready to support N3XT and its founders as they emerge from “stealth mode.”
“N3XT’s founders, Scott and Jeff, are forces of nature: they previously built Signature Bank, the biggest and best bank to support the US crypto industry in a regulated way, before the last administration forced them to shut down,” he said.
“Most founders would quit after something like that, but instead they immediately went back to work building N3XT,” Pack added.
Magazine: 6 reasons Jack Dorsey is definitely Satoshi… and 5 reasons he’s not
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024